Discussion Title: Is Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) technology the solution to fossil fuel burning?

1. Is Low Energy Nuclear Reaction \(LENR\) technology the solution to fossil fuel burning?
1.1. Con: This is cold fusion, it was disproven in the 90s. Anyone saying they have it is a scammer
1.1.1. Con: Cold Fusion is the name given to the phenomenon by the media, not the scientists. It has been well known for 30 years that the reaction is not fusion.
1.1.2. Con: The uncertainty of the science, largely due to the fear of academia of suffering the same reputational fate as Fleischman and Pons, leaves the field open for charlatans like Leonardo Corp whose technology is trotted out like a magic show. "Don't look too close! Scientist not welcome!"
1.1.3. Con: There is still [no conclusive evidence](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-current-scien/) present for disproving cold fusion.
1.1.4. Pro: After eight years of intense effort costing tens of millions of dollars, the [evidence for cold fusion](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-current-scien/) still remains weak. It is hence very unlikely that 'cold fusion' is really an easy solution to the world's energy needs.
1.1.4.1. Con: As with many other lay perceptions, perceived or even actual weakness in a field does not prove, nor even indicate, continuing or even extant weakness
1.1.5. Con: The fact that you claim anything can be scientifically disproven exposes your ignorance. The reaction misnamed cold fusion exists, its components are well understood properties of nuclear physics, and while the gross reaction is 4 H - \> He, it is not, and never has been fusion.
1.2. Pro: Most reactor/generator designs can run on water \(generating their hydrogen needs via simple electolysis\) and at current theoretical projections would need the catalyst material \(reasonably cheap materials\) replaced once every 3-5 years.
1.3. Pro: Using a lease to own model, consumers could purchase all the power they need for their homes/cars/etc. For less than they currently spend on traditional power services.
1.4. Con: So-called "cold fusion" research is a [pariah science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Current_research), and papers are not currently published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
1.4.1. Pro: Without scientific scrutiny and feedback, research into this technology cannot progress.
1.4.1.1. Con: As with many technological advances, use preceded understanding, often by centuries. \(Fire, Aspirin, etc.\) Lack of theoretical consensus does not stop exploitation by engineers. [www.brillouinenergy.com](http://www.brillouinenergy.com) for example.
1.4.2. Con: If the scientific community was prepared to accept papers for review on the topic, this would be valid. However, they are not. So this argument is specious.
1.5. Con: No single solution will work.
1.5.1. Con: Opinion, aka Trumpism
1.6. Pro: Flips the energy ecosystem on its head, favors small and medium sized generators widely distributed vs. large centralized generation with distribution networks.
1.6.1. Con: Many industries that support the current centralized model for energy generation and distribution will no longer have jobs
1.6.2. Pro: Much more resiliant to natural and man made disasters. If everyone has a personal residential generator, then when disaster hits, only those directly impacted may lose power. The rest are fine because they aren't dependent on centralized infrastructure. Puerto Rico could have recovered in weeks.
1.7. Con: Undermines the existing energy economy eliminating the need for distribution networks and fossil fuel burning. Massive economic shift that will cause significant job loss